Proton Radius Cannot Be Derived From Standard Model
in [Relativity]
|
From: mpc755 on 6 May 2010 12:32 On May 6, 12:24 pm, glird <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote: > On Apr 26, 6:24 pm, "Robert L. Oldershaw" <rlolders...(a)amherst.edu> > wrote: > > > On Apr 26, 2:22 pm, glird <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote: > > > A new paradigm already exists. The trouble is that nobody, other > > > than its sire, is willing or able to consider the merits of anything > > > that disagrees with the old one embedded in their mind. > > Sad, but true. However, while that is the situation now, who knows > > what the situation might be in the not-too-distant future? The > > Ptolemaic paradigm eventually collapsed under the weight of its own > > ungainly artificiality. I predict the same will eventually happen to > > the substandard paradigm, starting with the just-so story known as > > Quantum Chromodynamics, which is the weakest link of the substandard > > model. > > The trouble with the present paradigm began with > the Ancient Greek Philosophers' secret answer "No" > to the unasked question "Is matter compressible". > THAT is the reason they created the theory that Matter > is made of particles traveling in an otherwise empty space. > Although atoms do exist and are particles, they are made > of the same kind of COMPRESSIBLE matter that fills each > of them and the spaces between them too. > Accordingly, the strongest link in the present paradigm, > the kinetic atomic theory, is itself the "weakest link" of all > present models. > > Once that is known, it becomes rather easy to work out the > mechanisms of gravity, light, quanta, and everything else that > exists in the universe. > > glird Exactly. I think it is conceptually clearer to name the 'compressible' and to describe matter and aether as states of it. I have named it mæther. Matter is compressed mæther and aether is uncompressed mæther.
From: PD on 6 May 2010 14:06 On May 6, 11:32 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On May 6, 12:24 pm, glird <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote: > > > > > On Apr 26, 6:24 pm, "Robert L. Oldershaw" <rlolders...(a)amherst.edu> > > wrote: > > > > On Apr 26, 2:22 pm, glird <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote: > > > > A new paradigm already exists. The trouble is that nobody, other > > > > than its sire, is willing or able to consider the merits of anything > > > > that disagrees with the old one embedded in their mind. > > > Sad, but true. However, while that is the situation now, who knows > > > what the situation might be in the not-too-distant future? The > > > Ptolemaic paradigm eventually collapsed under the weight of its own > > > ungainly artificiality. I predict the same will eventually happen to > > > the substandard paradigm, starting with the just-so story known as > > > Quantum Chromodynamics, which is the weakest link of the substandard > > > model. > > > The trouble with the present paradigm began with > > the Ancient Greek Philosophers' secret answer "No" > > to the unasked question "Is matter compressible". > > THAT is the reason they created the theory that Matter > > is made of particles traveling in an otherwise empty space. > > Although atoms do exist and are particles, they are made > > of the same kind of COMPRESSIBLE matter that fills each > > of them and the spaces between them too. > > Accordingly, the strongest link in the present paradigm, > > the kinetic atomic theory, is itself the "weakest link" of all > > present models. > > > Once that is known, it becomes rather easy to work out the > > mechanisms of gravity, light, quanta, and everything else that > > exists in the universe. > > > glird > > Exactly. > > I think it is conceptually clearer to name the 'compressible' and to > describe matter and aether as states of it. I have named it mæther. > Matter is compressed mæther and aether is uncompressed mæther. Personally, I think it is conceptually clearer to name flatworms and nematodes as states of mæther. Flatworms are flat, living mæther, and nematodes are round, living mæther. It's simple, really. That's what makes it more correct, you know. PD
From: mpc755 on 7 May 2010 01:09 On May 6, 2:06 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On May 6, 11:32 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On May 6, 12:24 pm, glird <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote: > > > > On Apr 26, 6:24 pm, "Robert L. Oldershaw" <rlolders...(a)amherst.edu> > > > wrote: > > > > > On Apr 26, 2:22 pm, glird <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote: > > > > > A new paradigm already exists. The trouble is that nobody, other > > > > > than its sire, is willing or able to consider the merits of anything > > > > > that disagrees with the old one embedded in their mind. > > > > Sad, but true. However, while that is the situation now, who knows > > > > what the situation might be in the not-too-distant future? The > > > > Ptolemaic paradigm eventually collapsed under the weight of its own > > > > ungainly artificiality. I predict the same will eventually happen to > > > > the substandard paradigm, starting with the just-so story known as > > > > Quantum Chromodynamics, which is the weakest link of the substandard > > > > model. > > > > The trouble with the present paradigm began with > > > the Ancient Greek Philosophers' secret answer "No" > > > to the unasked question "Is matter compressible". > > > THAT is the reason they created the theory that Matter > > > is made of particles traveling in an otherwise empty space. > > > Although atoms do exist and are particles, they are made > > > of the same kind of COMPRESSIBLE matter that fills each > > > of them and the spaces between them too. > > > Accordingly, the strongest link in the present paradigm, > > > the kinetic atomic theory, is itself the "weakest link" of all > > > present models. > > > > Once that is known, it becomes rather easy to work out the > > > mechanisms of gravity, light, quanta, and everything else that > > > exists in the universe. > > > > glird > > > Exactly. > > > I think it is conceptually clearer to name the 'compressible' and to > > describe matter and aether as states of it. I have named it mæther. > > Matter is compressed mæther and aether is uncompressed mæther. > > Personally, I think it is conceptually clearer to name flatworms and > nematodes as states of mæther. You would.
From: Thomas Heger on 7 May 2010 01:12 glird schrieb: > On Apr 26, 6:24 pm, "Robert L. Oldershaw" <rlolders...(a)amherst.edu> > wrote: > >> On Apr 26, 2:22 pm, glird <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote: > >>> A new paradigm already exists. The trouble is that nobody, other >>> than its sire, is willing or able to consider the merits of anything >>> that disagrees with the old one embedded in their mind. > >> Sad, but true. However, while that is the situation now, who knows >> what the situation might be in the not-too-distant future? The >> Ptolemaic paradigm eventually collapsed under the weight of its own >> ungainly artificiality. I predict the same will eventually happen to >> the substandard paradigm, starting with the just-so story known as >> Quantum Chromodynamics, which is the weakest link of the substandard >> model. > > The trouble with the present paradigm began with > the Ancient Greek Philosophers' secret answer "No" > to the unasked question "Is matter compressible". > THAT is the reason they created the theory that Matter > is made of particles traveling in an otherwise empty space. > Although atoms do exist and are particles, they are made > of the same kind of COMPRESSIBLE matter that fills each > of them and the spaces between them too. > Accordingly, the strongest link in the present paradigm, > the kinetic atomic theory, is itself the "weakest link" of all > present models. > This model of particles, that fly around each other is not even very satisfying. It is totally illogic, because we had to attach a field to those entities and don't know how to do it to a point. Than we have no idea, where those things would stem from. The big-bang-nucleosynthesis is an explanation of the same ilk, that is fantastically illogic, too. Than we find wavelike features of such particles and have trouble to put that into little chunks of something. So waves are particles themselfs, what is somehow hard to believe, especially when they appear as virtual particles. So it goes on and on.. Greetings TH
From: mpc755 on 7 May 2010 01:21
On May 7, 1:12 am, Thomas Heger <ttt_...(a)web.de> wrote: > glird schrieb: > > > On Apr 26, 6:24 pm, "Robert L. Oldershaw" <rlolders...(a)amherst.edu> > > wrote: > > >> On Apr 26, 2:22 pm, glird <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote: > > >>> A new paradigm already exists. The trouble is that nobody, other > >>> than its sire, is willing or able to consider the merits of anything > >>> that disagrees with the old one embedded in their mind. > > >> Sad, but true. However, while that is the situation now, who knows > >> what the situation might be in the not-too-distant future? The > >> Ptolemaic paradigm eventually collapsed under the weight of its own > >> ungainly artificiality. I predict the same will eventually happen to > >> the substandard paradigm, starting with the just-so story known as > >> Quantum Chromodynamics, which is the weakest link of the substandard > >> model. > > > The trouble with the present paradigm began with > > the Ancient Greek Philosophers' secret answer "No" > > to the unasked question "Is matter compressible". > > THAT is the reason they created the theory that Matter > > is made of particles traveling in an otherwise empty space. > > Although atoms do exist and are particles, they are made > > of the same kind of COMPRESSIBLE matter that fills each > > of them and the spaces between them too. > > Accordingly, the strongest link in the present paradigm, > > the kinetic atomic theory, is itself the "weakest link" of all > > present models. > > This model of particles, that fly around each other is not even very > satisfying. It is totally illogic, because we had to attach a field to > those entities and don't know how to do it to a point. The field attached to the particle is the aether. > Than we have no > idea, where those things would stem from. The big-bang-nucleosynthesis > is an explanation of the same ilk, that is fantastically illogic, too. The 'Big Bang' is more correctly described as a 'Big Ongoing'. The process which is described as the 'Big Bang' does not correctly reflect the universe. The universe, or the local universe, is a jet stream. > Than we find wavelike features of such particles and have trouble to put > that into little chunks of something. So waves are particles themselfs, > what is somehow hard to believe, Wave are not particles themselves. The particle exists in a very small region of the associated aether wave. 'Interpretation of quantum mechanics by the double solution theory Louis de BROGLIE' http://www.ensmp.fr/aflb/AFLB-classiques/aflb124p001.pdf "I called this relation, which determines the particle's motion in the wave, "the guidance formula". It may easily be generalized to the case of an external field acting on the particle." "This result may be interpreted by noticing that, in the present theory, the particle is defined as a very small region of the wave where the amplitude is very large, and it therefore seems quite natural that the internal motion rythm of the particle should always be the same as that of the wave at the point where the particle is located." de Broglie's definition of wave-particle duality is of a physical wave and a physical particle. The particle occupies a very small region of the wave. In AD, the external field is the aether. In a double slit experiment the particle occupies a very small region of the wave and enters and exits a single slit. The wave enters and exits the available slits. > especially when they appear as virtual > particles. 'Virtual' anything in physics is synonymous with 'I don't know' so I will just make stuff up. 'Virtual' particles do not exist out of nothing because they do not exist at all. The Casimir Effect is caused by gravity. Each and every nucleus which is the matter which is the plate displaces the aether. The aether displaced by one plate extends past the other plate. The pressure exerted by the aether displaced by the plates forces the plates together. |